15.28.1 needs some polish ?

[Srikanth S Adayapalam]

Hello !

(1) 0.6.1, 15.28.1 reads:

-----------------------
Given a function descriptor with parameter types P1..Pn, the compile-time 
declaration for a method reference is determined as follows.

If the method reference is qualified by a ReferenceType, two searches for 
a most-specific applicable method are performed, following the process 
outlined in 15.12.2. Each search may produce a method or, in the case of 
an error as specified in 15.12.2, no result.
First, the reference is treated as if it were an invocation of a method 
named by Identifier with argument expressions of types P1..Pn; the type to 
search is the ReferenceType; the type arguments, if any, are given by the 
method reference.

Second, if P1..Pn is not empty and P1 is a subtype of ReferenceType, the 
reference is treated as if it were an invocation of a method named by 
Identifier with argument expressions of types P2..Pn. If the ReferenceType 
is a raw type, and there exists a parameterization of this type, G, that 
is a supertype of P1, the type to search is G; otherwise, the type to 
search is the ReferenceType. Again, the type arguments, if any, are given 
by the method reference.

If both of these searches match a method, the reference is considered 
ambiguous.

Otherwise, if the first search matches an instance method or the second 
search matches a static method, no method is chosen.

Otherwise, if one of the searches matches a method, that is the 
compile-time declaration.
----------------------------

The first mention of static occurs in the penultimate sentence of the 
quoted text: Does that mean the following program 
should be declared ambiguous ? (8b74 compiles this fine, but at run time 
there is an NPE) - There is no real ambiguity here.

// ----
interface I {
  void zoo(Y y, String s);
}

class Y {
        void zoo(String s) {
                System.out.println("Y.zoo(String)");
        }
        void zoo(Y y, String s) {
                System.out.println("Y.zoo(Y, String)");
        }
}


public class X  {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        I i = Y::zoo;
        i.zoo(null,  null);
        }
} 
// -----------

I think this calls for a reordering of clauses and perhaps some rewording 
?
The sentence "Otherwise, if the first search matches an instance method or 

the second search matches a static method, no method is chosen." is a bit
vague ? i.e does this mean "No method is chosen as the compile declaration 

of the method reference" or that "these matches are eliminated from 
further
reckoning ?"

Also the sentence "If both of these searches match a method, the reference 

is considered ambiguous." preceding the first utterance of 'static' would
render the program above illegal.

Or reword the passage "First, the reference is treated as if it were an 
invocation of a method" to "First, the reference is treated as if it were 
an 
invocation of a _static_ method" and likewise massage the second part too 
?

(2) Should the passage "Also note that static method invocations have the 
form TypeName.method(),
while here we're using the more general ReferenceType; an error occurs if 
the reference ends up being a 
static method reference and the qualifier is a parameterized type." be 
relegated to the motivation box ?

Thanks!
Srikanth.